Friday, August 31, 2012

The Republicans, like the Democrats, have chosen the latter. And, as Larry Auster points out, in doing so they have also chosen sexual socialism:

Mrs. Romney, along with the GOP which approved her speech, has inadvertently demonstrated once again why women should not have the vote and should not have prominent positions in politics. Because once women have the vote, they become a separate constituency with interests separate from those of men. This inevitably results (1) in female emotionalism and female resentment becoming central in politics; (2) in everyone bowing down at the altar of the mistreated, overworked “moms” of America, who are thus turned into a new type of oppressed ubermensch; and (3) in women as a group demanding substantive equality with men as a group. In short, sexual socialism....

Republicans say they believe in a free society. But the truth is that women’s political equality is incompatible with a free society, because women’s political equality moves society irresistibly in the direction of socialism.

Women will never, ever, be freedom-oriented voters. They will always be security-oriented. Even women who are intellectually freedom-oriented - and what percentage of the electorate is even remotely intellectual? - find it necessary to fight off the emotional appeal of security arguments that appeal to them more powerfully than any man can hope to understand. Mussolini is one of many socialists who knew this, which is why political equality, including a guaranteed percentage of representative seats in the parliament, is the very first plank in the Fascist manifesto.

The Democrats accuse Republicans of fighting a war on women. It's not true. But they should be. Instead, they are putting the dreadful Ann Romney on display, who I suspect will make for a more baleful influence on American society than any first lady since Nancy Reagan. Hillary only engaged in a bit of financial corruption and fired her lawyer in an unusually untidy manner. Nancy gave us the War on Drugs.

And now we live in John Adams's DictatorshipTyranny of the Petticoat. How terribly surprising to discover that the nation's credit cards are maxed out. The choice is between Suffrage or Liberty and you can only choose one.

124 Comments:

Ann Romney's speech war horrible in this regard and shows how out of touch the Romney's are from conservatives. Why not talk about the Democrats war on men and how it was hurting their husbands, sons and brothers? She, and Romney, don't see it, they believe in the Democrat's narrative because they are liberals.

I'm suprised they didn't trot a crippled Mexican transvestite out on the stage to help show the new face of the GOP. Good god man, but what a horror show. The comedic value alone was worthy of a thread.And poor Clint...

Down-under the current opposition leader of the Liberal (read Republican) Party is regularly reported as having a "women problem". In response to this he has tried to appeal to the female electorate with what will certainly be a disastrous parental leave scheme.

I asked a woman who I trust to give accurate answers what this "women problem" was and she said "because he looks sleazy." So women reporters and most of their male counterparts gleefully report this "women problem" without actually explaining what it is.

This alone made me far more receptive to the idea that granting women suffrage was probably an awful mistake. Sorry I can't quite commit to removing the "probably" yet.

Women vote for security. Politicians play to this in two ways: 1) the strong man who will protect you appeal; and 2) the make you feel secure by hugging you and promising financial support appeal. Even politicians have to follow through on campaign promises sometimes, so how could we have anything other than a police state with cradle-to-grave welfare?

If women were not allowed to vote, drive or have credit cards America would have been better off.

I watched some of Ann's talking points/interviews. It is nice to see a pretty blonde talking but women do not belong in politics b/c their policies are not towards freedom. If Ann was asked about FEMA, drones or the NDAA she wouldn't have an answer. When she was asked about family she provided an answer since that is the extent of her purview. Just like the current administration's First Lady's obsession with food/obesity. I mean no direct criticism, its just my observation.

Why stop at women? It seems democracy itself is a form of communism whereby any empowered group can literally loot and destroy any group that is less powerful.

How about stripping the voting rights of old people, who seem to not give a flying you know what about anything as long as they get their monthly SS check, medicare and all the other handouts. They're the ones that vote in the highest percentages because they have nothing better to do than bitch like a bunch of yentas at how bad everyone else is while on the dole.

I generally have a good godly wife. The last time we voted I didn't have to sit her down and explain what was on the ballot, how we were voting and why, she asked days before hand and had already come up with the right answers and reasons. God bless her average-witted soul.

The one thing I had missed was a lately added initiative to increase the number of police. Her vote? More police.

She can generally pick the issues and even knows how to vote in spite of her female drive. But on this one, it never occurred to her that she wasn't voting for more police because it was a good idea, roll Vox ... she was voting her security hamster.

She asked when we got home, we discussed it, she hung her head, said "I'm sorry" and wept. The woman has a good heart and I wouldn't trade her for the entire Swedish bikini team.

Would that all women had the good sense to realize they shouldn't be voting.

"How about stripping the voting rights of old people, who seem to not give a flying you know what about anything as long as they get their monthly SS check, medicare and all the other handouts. They're the ones that vote in the highest percentages because they have nothing better to do than bitch like a bunch of yentas at how bad everyone else is while on the dole."

I've long been of the opinion that no one who receives checks (with the exception of tax refund checks) from the government should be allowed to vote. This would include not only the elderly, but all government employees, students receiving student loans, anyone receiving food stamps, welfare, unemployment, and employees of government contractors.The only people who should be allowed to vote are those who pay income taxes, and only the individual who actually pays, not his or her spouse. Perhaps after a few years of only those actually paying the bills having a voice in the government we might be able to change things for the better.

How about stripping the voting rights of old people, who seem to not give a flying you know what about anything as long as they get their monthly SS check, medicare and all the other handouts. They're the ones that vote in the highest percentages because they have nothing better to do than bitch like a bunch of yentas at how bad everyone else is while on the dole................

Thread winner and spot on.Greed dressed up as a sweet old man or woman is still greed.

This is the WORST kind of political in-correctness, and it also happens to be absolutely TRUE. John Lott explains this phenomenon well in "Freedomnomics". The nation had no SUSTAINED debt until suffrage was forced upon us, with its subsequent "unintended consequences". Now, it's dubious that we will ever be free, or solvent, again. Sorry. Just the facts, ma'am.

Why stop at women? It seems democracy itself is a form of communism whereby any empowered group can literally loot and destroy any group that is less powerful.

That was covered in the constitution originally. It basically set the voting to landowning men over 25 (iirc). The landowning meant, at the time, taxpayers. Simply shift the thing back to that standard and most problems would end within a few generations, max. Actually, that might even shift the tax burden BACK to landowners only, as it really should be. It would also mean they make all the choices. But the nation was based on no taxation without representation, which makes the obverse seem quite reasonable as well, to me.

There would be no welfare queens. Charity would be just that. I like the notion myself.

Why stop at women? It seems democracy itself is a form of communism whereby any empowered group can literally loot and destroy any group that is less powerful.

That was why the Founding Fathers limited it in the first place. I've been reading Machiavelli recently, and it is intriguing to see how many of the ancient and medieval writers are far more aware of the flaws of democracy than any of the talking heads discussing politics in the West today. Unfortunately, the present US system is a fraudulent one that is actually much worse than direct democracy, combining as it does the evil aspects of democracy and aristocracy.

Many of us agree, but are women going to vote not to give themselves the vote? Until society collapses this is all wishful thinking, not different then men wishing marriage 1.0 will return

Who said anything about "wishful thinking". It is merely observation. How many times do I need to come out and repeat the same thing: America is dead, nothing is going to get fixed, no change of course is possible, the system will collapse, it doesn't matter for whom you vote.

Is this somehow insufficiently clear?

Cue some idiot asking: "But what should we dooooooo? How can we fiiiiiiiix it?"

I have all sorts of caveats about fMRI studies of behaviour, but to summarize the results - when faced with a reason/desire conflict, men use the prefrontal cortex (executive function) to suppress the limbic system (emotional motivation), while in women it appears to run the other way.

And in other news, here in Argentina our delectable Presidenta has just proposed to extend suffrage - dropping the voting age to 16 and including permanent residents. Between teenagers and Indio economic migrants from Bolivia and Peru, she anticipates picking up 3 million votes. What could possibly go wrong?

Vox, it isn't just the USA that is dead, but all of secular Western culture.

Democracy can not function long term. It doesn't function at the most basic level of society, the family, or the next step up, the work place. The majority of people in the world can not be trusted to make decisions.

We all know this, even the anarcho libertarians. You don't give you kids a vote (or you shouldn't) on how they should act and behave. You don't give your employees a vote on how to run the company (or you go bankrupt).

Most people worship the god in the belly, not their own best interest.

If you have to suppress votes to see your preferred society emerge, you might want to consider the possibility that your preferred society sucks.

To be sure. Perhaps the voters are wise and full of foresight. On the other hand, if your well-suffraged society is bankrupt and collapsing into death, disease, and chaos, you might want to consider the possibility that Most People Are Idiots and a society that "sucks" is nevertheless vastly preferable to society for which the majority voted.

I've long been of the opinion that no one who receives checks (with the exception of tax refund checks) from the government should be allowed to vote. This would include not only the elderly, but all government employees, students receiving student loans, anyone receiving food stamps, welfare, unemployment, and employees of government contractors.

As the employee of a government contractor, I agree 100% with this idea. I've thought it myself many times over the years.

@Jeigh Di..."I've long been of the opinion that no one who receives checks (with the exception of tax refund checks) from the government should be allowed to vote. This would include not only the elderly, but all government employees, students receiving student loans, anyone receiving food stamps, welfare, unemployment, and employees of government contractors."

Of course, I agree with you. I have advocated exactly that position on this blog many times over the year. For a few minutes, all the conservatives agree until they realize it also includes those in the military...who are government employees too....and that would include the reserves and national guard as well. Then they collectively spit on the ground and turn their backs.

But you are right, of course. Anyone who has their hand in the treasury box should not be deciding the outcome of the elections. There is an inherent conflict of interest when government employees or welfare recipients vote.

And yet, since women's suffrage, the United States has prospered. GDP has increased by 25 times (and faster the more rights and responsibilities women have been given). Then there are the numerous advances in science and civil rights. These results speak for themselves despite constant cries of collapse which never come to pass.

Now, you can argue that it would have been better without women voting, but the idea that women's suffrage is a disaster for society is laughable.

However, I agree it is harder for some men who can't compete with women in the workplace or the marketplace. And women's rights have certainly limited the pool of possible mates for men who need submissive wives to balm their world-wounded egos. I have a feeling this is where most of the grousing is coming from. Too bad, so sad, though.

Voting rights will be narrowed to strong men and their leaders when that authority is won by the sword....as in the past. Those who create a new government are unlikely to surrender it to the mass of spectators who risked nothing to bring it about. This will naturally exclude practically all of the women, most of the elderly, and any men who have not earned the right by knighthood and distinction. As long as they can resist the temptations of those who would offer money to be allowed to vote, then the franchise will remain intact.

"GDP has increased by 25 times (and faster the more rights and responsibilities women have been given). Then there are the numerous advances in science and civil rights. These results speak for themselves despite constant cries of collapse which never come to pass."

I'm sure the same song was sung in the Greater Reich or the Soviet Union at one point in time. Almost verbatim I'd wager.

"And yet, since women's suffrage, the United States has prospered. GDP has increased by 25 times (and faster the more rights and responsibilities women have been given). Then there are the numerous advances in science and civil rights. These results speak for themselves despite constant cries of collapse which never come to pass."

And women voting brought this about how pray tell??? Have you looked at the debt recently? But I'm sure only men brought that misery upon us. There's this thing called logic. You might have heard of it. Or not...

It’s the moms of this nation—single, married, widowed—who really hold this country together. We’re the mothers, we’re the wives, we’re the grandmothers, we’re the big sisters, we’re the little sisters, we’re the daughters.

Nothing is more socially liberal than what she said in that paragraph. Single moms do not hold this country together, in fact they are destroying it. They are literally driving men to immolate themselves on the steps of courthouses.

And women need men. That's why there is a women's movement in the first place. It is one giant collective shit test against us.

And yet, since women's suffrage, the United States has prospered. GDP has increased by 25 times (and faster the more rights and responsibilities women have been given). Then there are the numerous advances in science and civil rights. These results speak for themselves despite constant cries of collapse which never come to pass.

GDP has increased 25x. The Federal debt has increased 727x in the same amount of time... and faster the more rights and responsibilities women have been given.

You are looking at all the stuff purchased with a maxed-out credit card and mistaking it for wealth.

Poltical pundits have finally got Mitt Romney to demonstrate that he's a feeling man. He had to let his wife reveal the paranoid single-mindedness that all women are subject to. Remember what a woman's vision is. It is a world of successful reproduction and child rearing.

A smaller number of women are more broad-minded. But even their view is limited by emotional tumult. They crave that men express a feeling for women's pain.

Knowing that is still no reason to withhold your vote from Mitt Romney. Remember that wives are usually women and women are all the same (unless they're from a minority group where the men's absence was thrust upon them.)

You didn't invent women and neither did the GOP candidates. What we must accept is that women also have the vote. To play, we have to cover all the bases.

Yeah, about that No Voting for anyone taking a Government Check.What do you propose to do about the Disabled American Veterans?Do they get a pass, having been wounded in the service of said government?How about the widow of a Vet?They lost a spouse for that government.Do they get a vote?

Hard questions, but they need to be answered, or we are just wasting our breath.

I basically hear you as saying, if the men of society can't lead women, at least limit their access to voting. This does not strike me as alpha or alpha[+ qualifiers] advice.

A woman's experience and voice can be important in decision making.

Rigging the system smacks of a fear that doesn't demonstrate the type of leadership I believe most men are called upon to use-- empowering those they lead and not themselves. Men who want to empower themselves at the cost of others, display a striking insecurity and a lack of power, at least to me.

I agree. Men should definitely solicit input from their wives before they head out the door on the way to the polls.

I wonder if the proponents of women's suffrage have considered that nobody actually has any inherent right to a vote. Democracy is just a rule of procedure.

Democracy as some sort of pseudo-philosophy is really more 19th century thinking as the monarchies started collapsing into irrelevance. I think by the next century "democracy" will be held in the same kind of quaint regard we reserve for things like Shaker communes or hippie co-ops.

I basically hear you as saying, if the men of society can't lead women, at least limit their access to voting. This does not strike me as alpha or alpha[+ qualifiers] advice.

Most men are not Alpha males.

Northern Hamlet August 31, 2012 2:17 PM

A woman's experience and voice can be important in decision making.

A woman's voice and experience is important in decision making her family. But voting is not decision making. Voting is picking people by majority who get to make the decisions, and thus giving up any input whatsoever into the actual decision making yourself.

The Anti-Gnostic August 31, 2012 2:35 PM

I wonder if the proponents of women's suffrage have considered that nobody actually has any inherent right to a vote. Democracy is just a rule of procedure.

I basically hear you as saying, if the men of society can't lead women, at least limit their access to voting. This does not strike me as alpha or alpha[+ qualifiers] advice.

One of the differences between alphas and betas, as I understand it, is that an alpha doesn't feel it's necessary to have the woman's consent to all his decision-making.

A woman's experience and voice can be important in decision making.

There's a difference between taking someone's advice and giving them free rein to undo all your decisions and work.

Rigging the system smacks of a fear that doesn't demonstrate the type of leadership I believe most men are called upon to use-- empowering those they lead and not themselves. Men who want to empower themselves at the cost of others, display a striking insecurity and a lack of power, at least to me.

This is pure feminism. Your notion of "leadership" is one that involves giving your followers power and authority they were never meant to have. The reason is based on a favorite shaming tactic by feminists, too: you're afraid someone will think you're "weak". Want to talk about gamma behaviors?

"Rigging the system smacks of a fear that doesn't demonstrate the type of leadership I believe most men are called upon to use-- empowering those they lead and not themselves. Men who want to empower themselves at the cost of others, display a striking insecurity and a lack of power, at least to me.

The republican pandering to women at the convention was really lame. Mrs. Romney declared that single moms held the country together, instead of leading to a long term decline. Chris Christie declared his Sicilian mom was the dominatrix of the family when he grew up and his father, still living was just going along for the ride. If I was his father that would be the last time I heard my son’s voice, the fat prick he could go to hell as far as I would be concerned( I would go to Texas). Romney of course made sure to do something similar in detailing how his father was so devoted to his mother, not about the male virtues that his father represented and defined him. The male speakers came across as a bunch of soft men of words, afraid of women (with the exception of Ryan), not men of action that spoke from conviction of their cause.

Rubio came across as a narcissistic Cuban who occasionally would say he was an American after which he would talk about his entirely Cuban world centric upbringing again. Another soft wimpy, non-threatening man who was nice…….

Other impressions: Jeb Bush is for amnesty and willing to play the personal attack card against those that do not share his belief. He has learned nothing from the career of his father or the complete disaster of his brother’s two terms. Why was he allowed to speak when Palin the reformer on the state level and Newt, the only significant federal Republican politician who ever actually attempted to balance the federal budget were not? What does that say about Romney and the RNC?

Very little realistic discussion about the financial problems we faced, other then the one speech by Ryan where he indicated we as a county could not kick the can anymore, we had to act now or face disaster. But then let’s see, the budget he proposed does not balance the budget, for…………28 years so how sincere was that? And Romney in his acceptance speech made it clear he had no intention of facing up to any difficult decision involving raising taxes and cutting benefits.

Not one speech that spoke about freedom or its loss. We just had the TSA start to get involved with stadium security, what an easy target. Not even a whisper. The “security state” is alive and well in the RNC, and the constituency of drones that make up the Sicherheitdienst are not going to be opposed by Romney. A women's world view.

If this is what passes for the fiscally and social conservative party in America then the republic is truly dead and gone. If the republicans lack the courage to put forward their message when they have all the winds in their sails, what chance is there they will make any significant changes in the direction of government.

"Yeah, about that No Voting for anyone taking a Government Check.What do you propose to do about the Disabled American Veterans?Do they get a pass, having been wounded in the service of said government?How about the widow of a Vet?They lost a spouse for that government.Do they get a vote?

Hard questions, but they need to be answered, or we are just wasting our breath."

Sorry Thomas. If you're receiving a government check you're going to vote for the person who promises that the check will keep on coming, and that it will be bigger. That's only human nature, and largely why the economy is the way it is.No exceptions.

But not to worry, Thomas. There's no way anyone's voting rights will actually be rescinded. I'm sure though, that sooner or later a man on a white horse will show up to set things right. All he'll ask of us is that we give up the few remaining rights and freedoms we still have. And we'll do it.

Western Civilization is not dead. It is merely in a cocoon. The problem is that it will not be a pretty butterfly when it emerges. It will be a vengeful, fire-breathing dragon. Ridden by a ....wait for it.....woman.

Too bad the woman hasn't read what will happen to her after riding the dragon.

My father had a friend who was very private. But I often overheard their conversations. I knew this man was different. First of all, he made his living selling name brand irregular shirts from his car. He bought the merchandise for cash, (an arrangemnt that was welcomed by the wholesaler)and sold them at a discount. He never charged sales tax, or recorded sales. He never deducted for expenses.

It goes without saying that he did not register to pay income tax. And he did not register with social security. He foresaw that although an SS number was legally not usable for purposes of identification,the rule would be ignored. He could not be drafted for the Viet Nam war because he did not exist.

He was never legally married, but he supported a woman and had dinner with her about four times a week. She fronted for his telephone and his car registration. When he died he left all his money to the woman, untaxed and unrecorded.

This guy was considered eccentric by others, but when I think about individual liberty, I think about him.

I was watching Vanilla Sky last night. I think the moral of the story, is to never hitch a ride with a chick, especially one that you porked the night before, four times, and you thought you were just friends. Try and play game with that chick, when the vehicle is moving at an extremely dangerous speed, and you, don't have the wheel. Even if you bail, you're probably still going to suffer serious injury.

Perhaps a metaphor on female suffrage? If she votes for your confidence, and you misinterpret her intentions, or say her wishes, does she respond by driving herself and you off a cliff? Come to think of it, isn't that just where we are heading? And, why is that?

I'd say, in our next iteration of the republic, not only that we not allow females to vote, but equally do not let them drive. I mean, they are certainly capable. They are wonderful with a knife and vegetables. Just don't EVER let her leave the kitchen, with that knife...

"GDP has increased 25x. The Federal debt has increased 727x in the same amount of time... and faster the more rights and responsibilities women have been given.

You are looking at all the stuff purchased with a maxed-out credit card and mistaking it for wealth."

The debt is extremely small compared to the increases in production of the last 92 years.

And that doesn't count standard of living and etc.

But then again I don't think that a debt problem that is fairly easily solved is going to bring down the US anytime soon. I would love a hard prediction though..when are we going to see race wars and the collapse of the west? I'll give you error bars of +/- 5 years if you like.

"And yet, since women's suffrage, the United States has prospered. GDP has increased by 25 times (and faster the more rights and responsibilities women have been given). Then there are the numerous advances in science and civil rights. These results speak for themselves despite constant cries of collapse which never come to pass." - Boris

"Contemporary (or second wave) feminism has aptly been described as "Marxism without economics," since feminists replace class with gender as the key social construct. Of course, what society constructs can be deconstructed. This is the feminist project: to abolish gender difference by transforming its institutional source — the patriarchal family. Certain streams of the Gay Rights movement have taken this analysis one step farther. The problem is not just sexism but heterosexism, and the solution is to dismantle not just the patriarchal family but the heterosexual family as such."

"The debt is extremely small compared to the increases in production of the last 92 years."

Is this comparable to Lenin's prediction that the amount of bloodshed needed by the majority workers to overthrow the bourgeois minority would be so small and so short lived in comparison to before, that the recoup in happiness and freedom would in effect have paid for itself via October?

This was covered early on in this blog. Very damning. As is the CommieManifesto's Ten Planks where the US is concerned.People have no desire to be free - or to believe that they've been had.

And it was likely George HERBERT WALKER Bush that gave us the scarcity of drugs and the resultant steep price - and enormous profits! (check out the private prisons' stock prices as well). Among all the other things it does.The Reagans were perhaps the stupidest first people evah!Of course, when you're shot at by a family "lone nut" friend of BushCo early in your term...

What was the increase in total wealth and well being since women got the vote?

Again, it seems odd that you want to blame women voters for a problem that took 70+ years to materialize, but somehow women voters don't get any credit for all the advances in society since they got the franchise.

No one can know the precise date or even range Boris. Who would have predicted the timing of the Soviet collapse even 5 years beforehand, yet many predicted its eventual collapse. And rightly so.

And precisely what were these advances that the fairer sex has brought to us? Science, technology, engineering, liberty? No. I'll grant you increased government spending, suffocating regulation, capital controls, mass unchecked illegal migration, no-fault divorce, social security, medicare, medicaid, decimation of traditional families, abortion, government schools, or even gay marriage? Hmmm. You might have a point.

German aviation reaching an apex with jet aircraft and rocketry - not to mention cinematography and film making - this was also due to women voting for the NSDAP? After all, both areas had their female trail blazers. [1][2]

One would think the policy of Lebensraum would have coincided rather well with a stronger female vote.

"Like the fall of the Roman Empire, the fall of the United States has not been a single event. IMO the collapse started May 31, 1913, the day the 17th Amendment was formally adopted." Jeigh Di

Now that would be a fun date to argue, though I think many would agree that 1913 was a very bad year for liberty with the 16th, the 17th, and the Fed. Some might argue for the War Between the States. Nate would likely make his case on the adoption of the Constitution itself (as did Gary North) since the Articles represented a much weaker central government. Still, your point holds, liberty has given way through a long series of discrete events, government encroachments that went largely unchallenged. I'm with you in one regard though; I can see why the 17th was sent to the states but I'll never understand why it was ratified. The states handed the keys and the guns to the drunk and then climbed in for the ride.

Boris, the advances in science during the history of the U.S. have been largely the result of men's efforts. The vast majority even today of women "scientists" are but overstatused/overpaid/overpromoted technicians.

Further, once the population increase and debasement of the currency (www.shadowstats.com level of accuracy, not made-up USSSR Soviet-level/Goebbels-level lies) is taken into account, much of the increase in GDP ceases. Throw in real (includes ALL liabilities) debt, and that point is toast.

For those who favor suffrage for military widows, I give you as first exhibit Cindy Sheehan.

And, re those here who use the term untermenschen, I'm surprised to not also see evocation of the concept of Lebensunwertes Leben. The feminists certainly see it for men:http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htmhttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4994492

What was the increase in total wealth and well being since women got the vote?

There was no increase in total wealth, Boris. If you buy a $15,000 car with $53,000 in debt, your total wealth is not $15,000 less depreciation, it is -$38,000 less depreciation. Do you truly not understand that?

"There was no increase in total wealth, Boris. If you buy a $15,000 car with $53,000 in debt, your total wealth is not $15,000 less depreciation, it is -$38,000 less depreciation. Do you truly not understand that?"

You are confusing total wealth with one year of GDP. The net worth of the US is positive--about 70 trillion. This includes the 53 trillion in debt.

"I identified 2033 as a collapse date for the USA more than five years ago."

That far out? When the FedGov finances can't mathematically work to just 2020? When just the subsequent collapse of the welfare state (SocSec/Medicare as well as homie breeding bucks) will arguably result in more damage from upheaval (if still worth it) than a dozen Hiroshimas? That's not even getting into the likely near-end of imports of POL, Pt-group elements, spare parts, etc., when the FRN reaches NO exchange rate internationally.

"Many of us agree, but are women going to vote not to give themselves the vote? Until society collapses this is all wishful thinking, not different then men wishing marriage 1.0 will return

Who said anything about "wishful thinking". It is merely observation. How many times do I need to come out and repeat the same thing: America is dead, nothing is going to get fixed, no change of course is possible, the system will collapse, it doesn't matter for whom you vote.

Is this somehow insufficiently clear?

Cue some idiot asking: "But what should we dooooooo? How can we fiiiiiiiix it?"

++

Yep, Which is why American politics is a waste of time, its pure entertainment in a morbid kinda way.

Jeigh DiWell, my Check is for about $100.00 (U.S.) a month.I do not intend to vote for who ever promises to increase it.And thanks for letting all military members know that their service (and sacrifice)well keep them from voting.I thought that was one of the things I was fighting FOR!Nice to know I was mistaken.

Read R.A.H. and his musing on Voting/Suffrage.Starship Troopers is a good place to start.

What are you beefing about? You have your check and your vote. As I pointed out, neither of these will be taken away. No politician wanting to be re-elected would dare try. By the way, I've read Heinlein. He gave a lot of advice about child rearing, too.